He was refuting your point of having sex with slaves. Your inability to comprehend a valid or relevant argument , which it 100% is, doesn't make it invalid or irrelevant.

And you should know something about blindly copying and pasting.

Its not a valid or even relevant argument. I was in no scenario referring to muhammed's slave wives alone, but all of what Islam dictates.
------------------------
Since you think this copy-paste is actually worth replying too:

"Out of these he set three of them free and married them, but had conjugal relations with Mariah on the ground of her being his slave-girl. In her case there is no proof that the Prophet (peace be upon him) set her free and married her. "
--------Oh look, he had sex wither her on the grounds of her being his slave-girl, there wasn't any proof that she was set free-----------------------------

-----------------

Just saying, copy past 9/10 times bites you guys in the ass because you don't read-before-posting.

That's nice that you can copy-paste paragraphs from the internet, but at least make them relevant.
------------
Seriously, we are talking about fucking slavery(pun?) and you post shit about why muhammed is allowed to have many wives. Which in all honesty is irrelevant and just stupid. I'd give a shit if polygamy wasn't already a topic that 90% of the world agrees is wrong, so w/e.

You don't have a fucking brain? do you think at all?
This is the explanation of the phrase which you said it's allowed to do sex with slavery It mean If the wife is a slave you can marry her and do sex with it , fucking think for a one time.

Simply you're ignoring this phrase , It's not a words , It's a Qur'an which is a book , which has an explanation from the last phrase and the second one.
Allah in this verse also granted him the permission to marry a few other kinds of the women: 1-The woman who came into his possession from among the slave-girls granted by Allah. According to this the Prophet (peace be upon him) selected for himself Raihanah from among the prisoners of war taken at the raid against the Bani Quraizah, Juwairiyah from among the prisoners of war taken at the raid against the Bani al- Mustaliq, Safiyyah out of the prisoners of war captured at Khaiber, and Mariah the Copt, who was presented by Maqauqis of Egypt. Out of these he set three of them free and married them, but had conjugal relations with Mariah on the ground of her being his slave-girl. In her case there is no proof that the Prophet (peace be upon him) set her free and married her.

I'm sorry,you just owned yourself.

God gave Muhammed slave-girls, he had sex with one of them, and you have no proof that she was ever set free or that he married here.

I'm not "interpreting the quran" at all. I'm quoting the quran as a source. There isn't any interpretation to be made. That is the translation, and its written in plain text.
------------------

I think you are interpreting this wrong. I'm not misquoting the quran or implying anything. I merely responded to your request about Islamic views on slavery.
=================

PS: I don't need a scholar for this. It is quite clear, also AS-Molar was kind enough to provide me proof of this. Thanks buddy!

The Arabic words used here are Ma malakat aymanykum, which is is wrongly interpreted as right hand possessions. It's actually a phrase used to refer to poor people who have been pledged to be taken care of. It has nothing to do with slaves or sex. Aymanykum means one's oaths, not right hand. No where in the Quran is this word used to refer to the right hand.

You are jumping to conclusions only after reading the translations and not referring to the ORIGINAL source, the Arabic words.

You are jumping to conclusions only after reading the translations and not referring to the ORIGINAL source, the Arabic words.

Ah the ole' language barrier bullshit story again. Do you guys all have secret meetings in a broom closet somewhere and rehearse this shit?
You all sound the same and use the same lame ass argument. You're basically saying the respected Muslim scholars/transcribers that were given the duty to transcribe the Quran to English are wrong. So I guess I can assume that all of the youtube vids that you knuckleheads post of English speaking Imam's teaching the Quran are all wrong too..you know..cause they're speaking English.

Ah the ole' language barrier bullshit story again. Do you guys all have secret meetings in a broom closet somewhere and rehearse this shit?
You all sound the same and use the same lame ass argument. You're basically saying the respected Muslim scholars/transcribers that were given the duty to transcribe the Quran to English are wrong. So I guess I can assume that all of the youtube vids that you knuckleheads post of English speaking Imam's teaching the Quran are all wrong too..you know..cause they're speaking English.

I don't see your rebuttal referring to any of the Arabic words I mentioned or even bother to stay on topic. I clearly explained how those verses don't speak of slavery or sex whereas you are indulging in popular belief which would indicate to me you don't have any argument to my previous post. Do you guys all have secret meetings in a broom closet somewhere and rehearse this shit? You all sound the same and use the same lame ass argument.

If you continue to ignore posting a relevant argument to what my post said, I will assume you are done, although I am already certain of that.

The Arabic words used here are Ma malakat aymanykum, which is is wrongly interpreted as right hand possessions. It's actually a phrase used to refer to poor people who have been pledged to be taken care of. It has nothing to do with slaves or sex. Aymanykum means one's oaths, not right hand. No where in the Quran is this word used to refer to the right hand.

You are jumping to conclusions only after reading the translations and not referring to the ORIGINAL source, the Arabic words.

I'm sorry, but that is just a lie.

The translations of "right hand posses" means owned slaves. Unfortunately for you, this is translated by muslims for muslims.

Over and over. This is has already been done many times by Islamic scholars. Not you, not me, Islamic scholars. People who dedicate their life to the teachings of Islam and making the quran clear.

Oh well, its another common muslim trait. Evidence provide with 100% authentic Islamic source, they deny it on accounts its in english........on an english forum.

I don't see your rebuttal referring to any of the Arabic words I mentioned or even bother to stay on topic. I clearly explained how those verses don't speak of slavery or sex whereas you are indulging in popular belief which would indicate to me you don't have any argument to my previous post. Do you guys all have secret meetings in a broom closet somewhere and rehearse this shit? You all sound the same and use the same lame ass argument.

If you continue to ignore posting a relevant argument to what my post said, I will assume you are done, although I am already certain of that.

I laughed at this post. If you don't understand the relevance of my reply you have some serious comprehension issues.